Bisexuality and the nature/nurture issue

[Stargazer1417]

I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on bisexuality as it ties into the nature/nurture thing, and/or genetics.

I ask this because I am bisexual, and so is my older brother, and so was our mother, and I believe her sister is, too (she lived for a few years in an exclusive lesbian relationship before settling down and marrying a man).

So my specific question is... do you think bisexuality could have something to do with genetics, or do you think, in our specific instance, my brother and I were just more comfortable with our sexual preferences because our mother was so open and willing to discuss hers, thus createing a comfortable environment for stepping outside what is considered to be sexually "normal," thereby lending credibility to the nurture side of the issue? Or perhaps it is some combination of these factors. And possibly it has nothing to do with it at all.

Just thought I'd ask.

[eddy10]

I believe that we are all by nature bisexual to a degree. I do understand the genetics of being gay/les or straight. However, I think most of our inclinations are steered by forces outside ourselves. Such as, church, parents, friends and society in general.

[BronzeBobby]

There's probably a little of both genetics and environment involved. For instance, think of being right-handed, left-handed, and ambidextrous. There's a genetic basis to it, but if you drive a stick shift for long enough, you learn to use your left-hand to do more complicated things. I am right-handed but since I had kids, I've learned to do lots of things with my left hand, out of necessity, because it seems like my right hand is always busy carrying or holding a child. I can now sign the sign-in sheet at the daycare center with my left hand, cook meals with my left hand, brush my teeth with my left hand, etc.... I think sexuality is probably like that, a mix of your biology and the effects of habit.


I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on bisexuality as it ties into the nature/nurture thing, and/or genetics.

I ask this because I am bisexual, and so is my older brother, and so was our mother, and I believe her sister is, too (she lived for a few years in an exclusive lesbian relationship before settling down and marrying a man).

So my specific question is... do you think bisexuality could have something to do with genetics, or do you think, in our specific instance, my brother and I were just more comfortable with our sexual preferences because our mother was so open and willing to discuss hers, thus createing a comfortable environment for stepping outside what is considered to be sexually "normal," thereby lending credibility to the nurture side of the issue? Or perhaps it is some combination of these factors. And possibly it has nothing to do with it at all.

Just thought I'd ask.

[wutheringheights]

Personally, I'm very critical of the entire nature/nurture paradigm. 'Nature' is a moral-philosophical concept specific to societies which feel they have become alienated from it ('it' amounting to a mythologized ideal of so-called primal origins). 'Nurture' on the other hand is a way of falsely generalizing the scope of cultural and social influences.
Now, what of 'sexuality'? Indeed not all cultures in the world even have such a concept, in the sense of a sexuality that exists in and of itself. The idea that sexual preference is conditioned by genetics I find deeply suspicious. When scientists and other 'experts' talk about a gay gene, for instance, what aspects of (homo)sexuality are they actually referring to? Are they talking about which kinds of direct sexual contact inspire pleasure?; are they talking about which private fantasies different people find most persuasive?; are they talking about an emotional identification that can be expressed sexually?; are they talking about a sexual attraction which also has emotional correlatives? There are many dimensions to sexual or sensual attraction and enjoyment and it seems to me that the genetic/biological 'explanation' of it is singularly reductive and at least potentially oppressive.
I've noticed there are people on this site though who seem to take offense at suggestions that sexual preference is not biological. I have even read thread posts that contend that attribution of sexuality to socialization or 'choice' is homophobic/heterophobic. I think though that this stems paradoxically from an idealization of the paradigm of choice/non-choice.
People make choices in their lives at different levels, with varying degrees of consciousness. Objectively, people have a potential for homo-, hetero- or bi-sexual attractions, just as they have the potential to acquire a number of different languages. There are those who remain comfortable exclusively in their original languages (and what happens to be one's original language is of course circumstantial), there are those who grow up speaking several languages and there are those who acquire second languages later in life. What differentiates one sexual preference from another in fact is just as complicated and elusive as what differentiates one language from another. Languages evolve, borrow from other languages, even occasionally disappear. What actually defines a separate language as such is connected to arbitrary concentrations of power and historically circumstantial political and economic interests. Furthermore, there exist creoles and dialects within the same languages and official recognition of these depends similarly upon different political interests. I believe the distinction between 'different' sexualities is similarly politicized. Official science is very quick to biologize issues of sexuality and remove them from the arena of cultural circumstance because much of our Western morality is grounded in fixed concepts of sexuality. 'Homosexuality', 'heterosexuality', 'bisexuality' are arbitrary distinctions. Let's be clear here. By these terms I'm not talking about one's attraction to another person who happens to be a particular gender; I'm talking about the ways in which the coupling of two people/bodies is politicized in terms of 'gender' and gender constructions.
People are attracted to each other at different levels for all kinds of different reasons. People are more or less able to explore different aspects of their psychosexual personalities, depending upon various factors.
To deny the role of biology in people's sexual 'choices' is not a denigration of those choices, as certain people at this site have seemed to believe. The point is that what distinguishes a same-sex relationship from a female-male relationship, indeed what distinguishes women from men, is ultimately arbitrary. Gender roles and sexual practices differ quite remarkably across cultures. But science is the new religion of the West and like any religion, it has its limited perceptions.

[bigirl_inwv]

I also think that, by nature, most people are bisexual to some degree. I think that degree varies by your social influences as a child. If something is acceptable in your home, I think its something you'd be more likely to try. Perhaps more people are bisexual or even homosexual, but haven't done anything due to social stigmas and fear of rejection from their peers. I don't even know where I'm going with this. lol. So I'll just say that I think it's a mixture of nature/nurture/personal choice.

[jem_is_bi]

I understand the scientific, social and religious motivations for knowing why some of us are bisexual and homosexual. Yes, my sexual orientation does create problems for me because most of society thinks of it as an evil character flaw. But, I will never change and more importantly, I do not want to change. Further, I do not know why I am bisexual and do not care if I ever know why.

[the mage]

I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on bisexuality as it ties into the nature/nurture thing, and/or genetics.

I ask this because I am bisexual, and so is my older brother, and so was our mother, and I believe her sister is, too (she lived for a few years in an exclusive lesbian relationship before settling down and marrying a man).

So my specific question is... do you think bisexuality could have something to do with genetics, or do you think, in our specific instance, my brother and I were just more comfortable with our sexual preferences because our mother was so open and willing to discuss hers, thus createing a comfortable environment for stepping outside what is considered to be sexually "normal," thereby lending credibility to the nurture side of the issue? Or perhaps it is some combination of these factors. And possibly it has nothing to do with it at all.

Just thought I'd ask.

................There is no question about it...
Traits and trends in family ties have been looked at and verified.
My family are all open with each other and my dad, now 81 and I have partied and toked together. He knows I'm activly Bi as I do him... Well, him not so much any more, ..;) My son is Bi as well and we safety call for each other now and then. My Ex wife is exceedingly Kinky, so is my son...
It all ties together...

The reason that Canadian law recognises sexuallity as a right not to be discriminated against is the recognition that you do not have a choice in the things that turn you on. That is unconscious driven activity.
Your choices in acting out your sex can make you a criminal, but the drive is not your choice. Many people suffer horribly from their sex drives and the social cost..

[Bluebiyou]

Ahh, the old nature/nurture question.
I'd say 'yes' instead of either/or.

There is clearly argument for nature.
How many boys grew up in a totally hetero surrounding, yet were unmistakably feminine or gay.
There is also clearly argument for nurture.
What percentage of boys who had sex with older boys/young men grew up to be totally straight?
What percentage of lesbians weren't molested/raped by a man?
Why does the incidence of homosexuality increase with population density?

So I'd say 'yes' to both nature and nurture.

...but if push came to shove, I would lean toward nature for bisexuality. Besides, I think we're all born bisexual... just a lot of us are very polarized.

[FalconAngel]

This question was asked on another thread.

However, for those that missed it, here's our take on it;

Nature and nurture both play a part in our sexuality.

With nature, it starts in the womb, with genetics and stress levels of the mother during gestation of the fetus.
With genetics, there is either a gene for homosexuality/bisexuality, or there isn't.
If the natural cycles of testosterone/estrogen injection into the fetus is interrupted or changed, due to stress, danger, etc., then that has a factor in not only the gender of the fetus, but the gender orientation and/or the sexuality.

That's the nature part.

For the nurture part, it is all about environment.

In the cases where a person's sexuality is exclusively based in nurture, then they can be "cured" as so many dominion Christians try to claim can be done.
Of course those are the only cases where that supposed "Gay cure" can ever work.

For the largest part, addressing only true sexuality, or more accurately, those sexual preferences that are not brought about by exclusively situational factors (i.e. abuse or other emotionally scarring events).

For someone to be gay, bisexual or straight they will almost always have any number of those factors. However, by removing the nurture aspect, one can still come by their sexual orientation naturally.

If we are really going to explore our sexuality, then we need to look at all factors, rather than just one or two factors.

Goddess knows, that there have been enough studies done, worldwide, about sexual orientation.
They have looked at the issue from every angle, but still there are so many that only see things from the one angle that they have studied, or the ONE angle that has been best or most publicized.
That is a very limited view. If we are to understand and clarify the current disinformation about sexuality, then we must explore all of the possibilities and possible combinations of factors.

If we look at a brick house and say that it was only made of brick, then we are ignoring the other components of it's construction. The same holds true of sexuality and sexual orientation.

like the house, which is made of brick, mortar, wood, wire, and insulation; so too, we must see sexual orientation in the same way, seeing every factor as part of the building blocks of sexuality.

[wutheringheights]

There is also clearly argument for nurture.

What percentage of lesbians weren't molested/raped by a man?




Are you aware of how this sounds?!!
I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this, but it sounds dangerously as though you're suggesting lesbianism is the result of a traumatism.
Now, that couldn't be what you're suggesting.... could it?

[Bluebiyou]

I am aware of how it may sound to some.
Personally, I think we are conceived egg and sperm, one cell, (bi-omni-pan)sexual beings. All of us.
Then our own gender influences our sexuality.
Then we have influence of mother's harmones.
Personally, I think the bell curve is much flatter for women then men. By that I mean the distribution of sexuality. I believe women are much more comfortable with their own bisexuality then men (my belief).
There certainly are dyed-in-the-wool straight and gay, men and women (nature).
However it is my observation and belief that some women are not so much turned onto women by a traumatic experience with a man, as repelled from men; thus mostly closing the door on hetero sexual relationships. Actually I believe that a similar but 'opposite' is true for some gay men.
The typical given fraction of women sexually abused by a man is 1/3.
A bisexual female friend of mine once confided interest in this subject and she found that she was the only woman involved in that lesbian community (mid sized city in usa with a thriving gay population), that had not been sexually abused by a man .
This coupled with the man-hating castrating-women of the 'coven' that is not written in stone, but common for several of lesbian groups; where lesbians will express disapproval or rejection of one of the community who 'betrays' the unwritten rule and falls in love with a man. Why should they disapprove? Why not be happy their friend found love?
So no, I'm not saying lesbians are evil, some are clearly defensive, and for good reason.
And no, I'm not saying attraction to other women is caused by a traumatic event. There are certainly many lesbians by nature.
I'm implying it is 'environment' of some women closing the door on tremendous hurt that no one should suffer.

In this context, when one is considering the nature/nurture argument of sexuality, and one considers lesbians and sexual trauma; you'd have to be intentionally biased to eliminate this 'environmental' influence entirely.

That's what I'm saying.

[wutheringheights]

I am aware of how it may sound to some.
Personally, I think we are conceived egg and sperm, one cell, (bi-omni-pan)sexual beings. All of us.
Then our own gender influences our sexuality.
Then we have influence of mother's harmones.
Personally, I think the bell curve is much flatter for women then men. By that I mean the distribution of sexuality. I believe women are much more comfortable with their own bisexuality then men (my belief).
There certainly are dyed-in-the-wool straight and gay, men and women (nature).
However it is my observation and belief that some women are not so much turned onto women by a traumatic experience with a man, as repelled from men; thus mostly closing the door on hetero sexual relationships. Actually I believe that a similar but 'opposite' is true for some gay men.
The typical given fraction of women sexually abused by a man is 1/3.
A bisexual female friend of mine once confided interest in this subject and she found that she was the only woman involved in that lesbian community (mid sized city in usa with a thriving gay population), that had not been sexually abused by a man .
This coupled with the man-hating castrating-women of the 'coven' that is not written in stone, but common for several of lesbian groups; where lesbians will express disapproval or rejection of one of the community who 'betrays' the unwritten rule and falls in love with a man. Why should they disapprove? Why not be happy their friend found love?
So no, I'm not saying lesbians are evil, some are clearly defensive, and for good reason.
And no, I'm not saying attraction to other women is caused by a traumatic event. There are certainly many lesbians by nature.
I'm implying it is 'environment' of some women closing the door on tremendous hurt that no one should suffer.

In this context, when one is considering the nature/nurture argument of sexuality, and one considers lesbians and sexual trauma; you'd have to be intentionally biased to eliminate this 'environmental' influence entirely.

That's what I'm saying.

All solid, thoughtful points, Bluebiyou, but I feel a need to respond once again.
Firstly, with all respect, I think the last paragraph is a little rich. Why does someone need to be 'intentionally biased' not to interpret matters the way you do? I don't doubt for a second there are many people out there whose subsequent sexual lives have been affected and detoured by violent experiences and I understand that you're not necessarily generalizing.
I do feel that one needs to be wary of percentages and statistics since these (very) often reflect decontextualized and fragmentary information.
Furthermore, I would suggest that the number of people active in a homosexual 'community' does not necessarily parallel the number of people in that area who are actively or potentially homo/bisexual. The fact that people co-existing in a community have various key experiences in common could well betray much more about the psychosociological need to construct 'communities' than it does about their sexuality, etc (even if the community is ostensibly centred around the issue of sexuality).
When I was attending a major metropolitan university, a number of the people in the Queer Society shared different biographical details and even hailed from the same suburb. Does this suggest that there is something in the water in that suburb? Or rather that the lack of community in one place leads people with marginalized desires/lifestyles to seek it elsewhere? In fact, I even think it is dubious to absolutize the need for community (I'm not suggesting that this is what you're doing; I'm talking generally). The emphasis on social networking and communitarianism is more culturally specific than many people tend to think.
You raise the question of why certain gay women aren't happy that their friends have found love with a man. I think again that this is all very complicated. I've known gay people of both genders who've responded disapprovingly to heterosexual inclinations in those identifying as homosexual or even bi. In fact, the committee of the celebrated LGBT Mardi Gras here in Sydney have had (I'm not sure whether it's still the case) a policy that members on the Bisexual Float not display any 'heterosexual tendencies'. Many people feel a need for their own sexual identity to be reflected in others in their circle. Many people's grip on what 'sexuality' is and indeed who they are is precarious at best and vulnerable to easy disruption. I myself have failed to be happy for friends when they've claimed to find love, mainly because I've been suspicious of their personal ideologies of 'love'. I also think that 'groups' as such (whether they be based upon sexuality, hobbies, religious belief, or whatever else) are implicitly defensive to some degree or another. That defensiveness may to varying degrees be justified.

[DiamondDog]

Ahh, the old nature/nurture question.
I'd say 'yes' instead of either/or.

There is clearly argument for nature.
How many boys grew up in a totally hetero surrounding, yet were unmistakably feminine or gay.
There is also clearly argument for nurture.
What percentage of boys who had sex with older boys/young men grew up to be totally straight?
What percentage of lesbians weren't molested/raped by a man?
Why does the incidence of homosexuality increase with population density?

So I'd say 'yes' to both nature and nurture.

...but if push came to shove, I would lean toward nature for bisexuality. Besides, I think we're all born bisexual... just a lot of us are very polarized.


What's with the negative stereotypes about dykes?

This is the 2nd time you've infered that most lesbians are lesbian because they've been raped or molested by men.

All of the lesbians I know have never been raped/molested by men and while they're not sexually attracted to men at all, it doesn't mean that they hate men.

This is a viewpoint like the ones that people who really don't understand homosexuality say when they say that most or all boys who are molested as children grow up to become gay.

Viewpoints like the one about how if a woman is raped/molested she becomes a dyke remind me of how my hetero friends and bisexual friends who are more hetero than I am, how I'll talk about how I'll have times (sometimes as long as half a year) when I'm not sexually attracted to women at all and they'll say, "oh that means you're anti woman!", and "You're not sexually attracted to women all the time? This means that you hate women!" :rolleyes:

[vittoria]

Stargazer,

One's environment has always been a foundation for ones belief system, either for the negative or the positive. Personally, I applaud your family for being true to themselves and allowing you to grow and blossom without hinderance.